[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180108074014.458333d1@xeon-e3>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 07:40:14 -0800
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: Chris Mi <chrism@...lanox.com>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>,
"marcelo.leitner@...il.com" <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"gerlitz.or@...il.com" <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch iproute2 v6 0/3] tc: Add -bs option to batch mode
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 08:00:00 +0000
Chris Mi <chrism@...lanox.com> wrote:
> > >> I wonder whether specifying the batch size is necessary at all.
> > >> Couldn't batch mode just collect messages until either EOF or an
> > >> incompatible command is encountered which then triggers a commit to
> > >> kernel? This might simplify code quite a bit.
> > > That's a good suggestion.
> >
> > Thanks for your time on this, Chris.
> After testing, I find that the message passed to kernel should not be too big.
> If it is bigger than about 64K, sendmsg returns -1, errno is 90 (EMSGSIZE).
> That is about 400 commands. So how about set batch size to 128 which is big enough?
Use sendmmsg?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists